"Be happy #Morsi is gone but please stop pretending this is a triumph for democracy. A coup is a coup no matter how many people support it." These were the words of a “tweep” on the popular social platform twitter, a few hours after the Egyptian army took control of the country and detained president Mohamed Morsi on expiry of the 48-hour ultimatum they had given him to “restore order”.
Egypt is a very young democracy that had members of the military as presidents since 1952, until the Arab Spring that toppled the high handed dictator Hosni Mubarak to pave way for democratic elections and set the country on what seemed like a path of constitutional leadership. Whether what unfolded after that was democratic is still a matter of contention between many political analysts. But what we saw, until recently, was a country that was trying to recover from decades of dictatorship to embrace rule of law and constitutionalism backed by a continuously enlightened and educated populous. By organizing an election that gave the Egyptian people a fair chance at electing a president with whom they would entrust the mandate of steering them towards constitutionalism and be accountable to them was, in itself, a baby step towards democracy that had eluded them for decades. That person was Mohamed Morsi who took office on June 30th , 2012.
Morsi moved swiftly to convince Egyptians by consolidating power in the presidency and the Parliament. By doing so, he diminished the power of the army, to which the army seemed “contented”, as long as order was restored. But considering the nearly collapsed economy he inherited, high unemployment and unsettled Mubarak supporters, Morsi was bound to make a few un-popular decisions. With Egyptians not well known for their patience, calls of failure to deliver were already being made as soon as two months into his presidency.
Egyptians did not wait for Morsi to reform the Institutions and structures that had come very close to non-functionality under Mubarak. But they saw a president who rushed to make deals with Hamas while negotiating a ceasefire between them and Israel, an action, the army says, threatened “national security”.
Considering their history, I wouldn’t rush to judge Egyptians on the high expectations they had from Morsi. However, Egyptians need to understand that the route from dictatorship to democracy is a long and delicate one that takes a concerted and collective effort. It is not straight. It is long, complex and full of obstacles. The most crucial part in that transition is the co-operation and support of the population in building functional institutions, developing the capacity of the state and emphasizing rule of law. Supporting the army in usurping power from an elected government and detaining a democratically elected leader in the name of “protecting the interests of the people” is no way to churn towards democracy. Democracy involves discussions and toleration of difference in ideology to be led until periodic elections where you get the chance to change. Deeper and wider participation, difference, confidence-building, the search for consensus, are invaluable keys to democratisation. Electoral processes, constitutional framing, or amendment processes, require high-quality institutions and professionalism which Egyptians should be building now.
Al Jazeera reported that, “The military has proposed a roadmap, agreed to by various opposition parties "to correct the direction of the revolution", and put the country back on the track of democracy. The roadmap envisioned swearing in the chief justice as a new interim president, forming a transitional government of technocrats with wide-ranging authorities and preparing the way for new constitutional amendments and elections.” The Egyptians should not be under any illusion that the military has their backs. Promoting democracy is not one of the roles of the military. The organisation, chain of command and authoritarian operation of an army is not in the least of ways, democratic.
The Egyptian army is known to control businesses that contribute about 40% of Egypt’s GDP. Therefore the act of undermining a legitimately elected government might be to shield their own interests and not necessarily to set the country on a path of democracy as many Egyptians believe. The army says Morsi had failed to “meet the demands of the people” and therefore they could not just sit back and turn a deaf ear to the movement. Opposition figures have said the numbers of protesters in the street is proof that Morsi had lost that legitimacy during his brief one year stint in office, but again, in a democracy, the only way to avoid speculation on what the numbers actually mean would be to invoke a referendum and decide his fate through the ballot.
The fate of Egypt continues to be seen under the “road map” proposed by the army, but the fact remains, its high time Egyptians made a choice between full scale democratisation and military rule. Military intervention in the political sphere, regardless of the circumstances, is hardly a positive sign towards democracy.
By Pathias Klinn Akabanjuna
The writer is a socio-political Commentator and Blogger
Bsc. Quantity Surveying
Twitter: @PathyKlinn
No comments:
Post a Comment